See, there's the problem, right there. You could meet every point of that patent on a touchscreen phone using an image of a latch with "Slide to Unlock" written below it. But some legal pedant would still say the idea behind this, when combined with the concept of touch-style drag and drop, which I personally used in 1996 and is a simple extrapolation of the mouse interface which was designed before I was alive, is a new and novel concept. Hence, millions of patents that basically read "[Something people have been doing for some period of time between a generation and the beginning of recorded history] on a computer/the internet/a tablet/a touchscreen.
However, physical latches don't detect contact, nor do they present an image or move the image. So, those first two steps aren't taught by physical latches.
Um, yes they are. Physics instructs my physical latch that it has been touched, and physics causes the image I receive of it to move while I continue to maintain contact with it and move my hand. Physics may also cause it to move back to its original position if I remove my hand, depending on the design of the physical latch.
Now, the real thing is certainly relevant prior art - you couldn't get a patent claim to Mie scattering, since that's inherent in why the sky is blue; and you couldn't get a claim to having virtual smoke rise from a virtual fire.
If your 'simulation' is throwing so much computing power at it that you can use actual physics to design the fire, smoke, and atmosphere, and just let them interact with believable results, I don't think it deserves a patent. Your processor might, if it isn't merely a progression of currently-patented ideas. However, if your simulation is a bunch of special algorithms that effectively reproduce the effect of real life without having to calculate what all the pieces are doing, that's may be worthy of a patent, and will doubtless require something more than and 80-year-old physics reference.
The fact that computing power has improved to the point that we can track physical contact and move high-res images with a responsiveness that is indistinguishable from reality by the human mind doesn't make using physical analogs in that environment innovative - that just makes sense. If they want to patent the painful, almost-intuitive design of the quicktime interface, circa v5, feel free. There's nothing obvious there, from the setting panel that can't be used on a low-res screen on up.
Thanks for the clarification. For all the faults of the society I live in, we can at least still state our opinions and not usually have to worry about jail or death. That said, there are things I won't say or put in writing because they can and have landed others in jail where I live (but not a third world jail). That's my solution to sensitive information, which, unfortunately, isn't going to do much to change the world for the better.
The complete implied sentence is, "Sometimes, it's easier just to not think if you're pretty than it is if you're not pretty." It doesn't mean you can't be ugly and not think, just that there will be more difficulties than if you're pretty and don't think.
I can compact dishes such that they only fill the bottom third of the dishwasher. The only drawback is ever using them again - the uncompacting routine is hugely intensive! I call this my VERY Lossy Dish Stacking Routine (I learned it at a Greek wedding). Note that it isn't very effective with metal kitchenware, and my cutlery packing algorithm doesn't allow for enough water to get between the cutlery and actually clean them.
So my suggestion is that, if you really want to see a jump in math skills, start placing more emphasis on learning the concepts and less emphasis on how fast students can process problems.
Alternatively, they could test for both separately, because I think there is still value for being able to do math quickly even if it isn't normally as important as accuracy. There are ways to do math very quickly, and ways to do it right, but very slowly. If you only have the second technique you will still be correct, but not fast. It might be worth looking at techniques to improve your math speed.
It's certainly possible that you are using the more robust techniques and still find it slow going. Then repetition may be your only option to improve. It's been determined that the brain gets more efficient at things it does over and over again, so some improvement will be seen, although how much is difficult to say.
Take a look at your keyboard, and count all the keys that produce a character of some sort. Now multiply by 2 (for using the shift key). And that is your approximate number of readily-available characters for a password. Mine has 94 (47 character keys), but I'm sure there are some that are just a bad idea.
I personally just assume that Bengie is a greybeard and is used to the old keyboards, or that he is big into security and that is the exact number of characters allowed by most security tools.
There's a bit of a difference between sensitive information and valuable information. Just about anyone who can afford a smartphone (in a first-world country) has sensitive information. That information probably isn't very valuable (less than $100) and so isn't going to be targeted with any serious effort to acquire - the phone is worth more. But, while that information isn't very valuable on the open market, dealing with the hassles of identity theft or similar makes it rather sensitive.
This guy doesn't seem to get the nuanced difference between wearing a skirt to walk down the street or sit in a restaurant as opposed to wearing one while, say, doing gymnastics. The difference in how much it conceals is drastically different. Likewise, I'd venture to guess that most women probably wouldn't walk on a glass walkway with others walking beneath it while wearing a skirt/dress.
The user when he is selecting what to install is the one actually doing all the work, the rest is just a glorified script to create the configured disk. Manually installing the selected programs would take hours per machine.
That sounds like an interesting script, and I'd love to get my hands on a working one that provides that functionality. Be a sport and whip that up for me, okay? You can just post a link to the file in my reply. Since it's so simple, and making it requires virtually no effort (certainly not enough effort to require monetary compensation), you can just make it available to the general population as soon as possible. I'm sure you have a coffee break coming up with nothing better to do.
Oh, you like to get paid for the work you do? So does that guy who wrote that script. Also, some people don't want to bother cutting their lawn and will pay a small amount to neighbourhood kids to do it for them. This doesn't make the kids thieves and scam artists - it makes them people providing a service that their customers couldn't bother doing themselves. Something tells me that you won't get a bill for the installation from Dell if you don't select the option and install it manually after you get the computer.
Yes, on Slashdot, the majority of users promote the idea of unfettered access to their systems, coupled with education so you know what to do with it. Seems pretty consistent to me.
My kids have android tablets, I pointed out the feature to them, told them not to use it unless they had a good reason to, and to talk to me first. As their education improves, I expect them to ask me less. So far, the only sideloaded app they have is flash player. It's from the adobe site so I don't think it counts as malware - except for being flash. I expect it to be uninstalled once better tools become available to replace it.
Old versions (Dec. 2013) of their systems can take a refillable filter of a variety of types, which you can add your own grounds to. This is a feature that may not be present in the newer versions, and also isn't available for Tassimo. And the single-serve coffee brewers that only take coffee grounds don't have the option of getting a variety of coffees and other beverages in easy-to-use containers.
I'm not saying their system is for everyone, but if you routinely don't drink more than a cup or two of whatever in a day, it makes more sense than a full pot brewer.
The incorrect assumption you are making is that the person you are talking to gets to set the rules.
Now we're up to 5 and a half cities!
Just because a car has software that was as expensive to produce as a jet's doesn't mean it has to cost the consumer that much. Cost to develop is only one factor. The other factor is units sold. There have been about 1000 Boeing 757s built, ever (747s have almost broken 1500). In the same time span, there were about 3 million Priuses built. If they spent the same amount on Prius software as they spent on software for the 757, they could price it at 1:3000 the price Boeing charges for the same profit. The ratio would be 1:2000 for the 747.
Now, you might say the comparisons are a bit off. I'm sure it is. But even is you spread the cost over those 3 million ECU's, that still leaves $100 million towards development costs (half the price of a $60 ECU, the other half devoted towards the ECU hardware). Merely $50 million if they insisted on 100% profits on that module. I think that could have gone a fair ways towards stopping the occasional stack overflow.